Frankly I'm not surprised. Europe really seems to be in deep trouble from rising religious and racial tensions, slowing economy and lack of security. I would indeed emigrate if I had the cash and a wife that wasn't completely numb to what goes on in the world.
I've been seriously contemplating it for about a year now: is it the time to abandon Europe and find new life elsewhere? Asking for the honest HN opinion, is the old continent already the sinking ship? On one hand it is comforting to consider that there is ~1000 years of history of civilized Europe behind us, with rich culture, the discovery and development of science and, in general, prosperity. On the other, it took less than a century for the Western Roman Empire to collapse.
Europe made a decision to move away from that history to something more like the US. Swedes and French don't have children, and they are importing Syrians and Africans who do.
It's a similar scenario to what happened with the old Dutch and English people in 1860 Manhattan. The new masses of Irish and Jews drove many to leave.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the future will be very different.
In the US, you're more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist in Europe.
Japan is peaceful for now, but has its own problems - rising tensions with China, proximity of North Korea, low economic opportunity. Same goes for most other developed Asian countries.
Africa, Middle East, Russia, most of Asia and South America are less developed (AFAIK), in terms of social cohesion, healthcare, economic opportunity.
The best options seem to be Australia and New Zealand, they are English-speaking, highly developed, peaceful, lawful and, most importantly, far away - a problem for some (e.g. if you have family members in other countries), but in case of major conflict, it will probably be a good idea.
All in all, some perspective is in order. Europe is probably the strongest it's been in the past 100 years. There are 300 million inhabitants, so even 1M migrants is a drop in the bucket. There are no immediate threats from other nation-states, except possibly for a few countries bordering Russia - although even they seem focused more on the Middle East recently. Most European countries still have the strongest social security.
On the other hand, the unexpected is just that, by definition. Chances are low, but it's possible that some crazy person does something crazy (Putin? Erdogan? A right-wing EU leader?). But that's true pretty much anywhere in the world.
Yeah, but in Australia we have sharks, snakes, spiders and drop bears .. don't forget the drop bears. Plus, our Internet is crappy (unless you're on the National Broadband Network) and we are something of a nanny state. Oh, and our housing is ridiculously expensive. But apart from that, everything is pretty good.
My friends in Australia say it's economy is too reliant on mining and raw exports and that there is not enough value added exports. Is this not a common view in Australia?
That would be correct......to an extent. I moved to Australia around 10 years ago (originally from Poland but traveled the world extensively) and worked in tech since then wishing I did a course in welding or heavy machinery operation instead. Even mining laundry service workers here get 120,000/year salary!
The tide is turning though and world's biggest quarry is in trouble.....since China problems are looming more profoundly on Australian economy (China sneezes and Australia catches a nasty cold) more people are looking towards other industries i.e. services, tech, medical and those who used to make a tidy profit in the mines are being let go due to slumping iron ore pricing and weakened demand. In the space of last 12 months iron ore price was cut in half.
Add world's most expensive housing prices, climate issues, stalling economy, bogan attitudes (less so with the influx of educated migrants) etc. and Australia has its own share of issues to deal with. All things considered though, I would never want to go back to Europe or move to US. Why? To name a few: stable democratic government, great lifestyle, far away from some of the the loony bins e.g. Putin or not sharing borders with other countries (can get pretty lonely here at times though as to get anywhere is a minimum 10 hours flight), good pay and social support system, lots of nationalities in bigger cities so racial tensions are rare (we all just seem to get along), warm weather etc. Why would I want to live anywhere else? Yes, I could make more money in US, be more culturally aware/inspired in Europe, have cheaper lifestyle in Asia (south-east) etc. but when you look at what's really important in life and narrow it down to a dozen or so factors, especially if having a family is a prospect, nothing comes close to living Downunder. Even Kiwis want to live here! And that comes from someone who lived (at least 16 months) on every continent, except Antarctica and Africa.
Another thing I like about Australia is that it has no cultural and historical debt. Coming from Europe where some of the buildings I use to live in were older then Australia itself, there was always a great sense of pride (sometimes false) to think/say/do things the certain way just because it's what my ancestors believed in. Don't get me wrong, I think that European culture, shaped by its history is one of the best things this continent can be proud of but for some reason living Downunder feels liberating. It does not matter where you come from, what religion you profess, whether you're a gay or straight etc. the pressure of being stigmatized based on your personal values or your origin is non-existent. Aussie history is very young, some may say that excluding Aboriginal people, it's just started so in some ways it feels that migrating here you can start your life with carte blanche without having to conform to any norms or dogmas resulting from entrenched culture as it's the case in other countries. It's far from laissez faire as Australia is somewhat a nanny state (in a good sense) but open-mined and democratic enough to let one be and not interfere or make you feel bad in case you have opposing views (think governments in China, Russia, UAE or culture in Middle East, Asia etc.)
I disagree. Abortion laws really paint a different picture from that open minded Australia you depicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia shows depending on where you live in the country you have different basic rights. Not the same carte blanche for everyone.
Except the massive problem of growing inequality, low wages, and a public service that has been shredded. New Zealand has a scary future if it can't start to face these problems.
Of developed countries, Australia is expected to be one of the most impacted by climate change. Already crop yields are being affected; drought (in the west and interior), floods (in the north and east), and heat waves (everywhere) are posing challenges to Australians.
Most of North and Central Europe is less likely to suffer from such drastic effects.
Latin America is also an option, but you have to go there with the mindset that you're going to be part of the upper class. That's the toughest thing that ex-pats from Europe and America deal with there. It's not very easy to go with a middle class identity and fit in with the existing middle class of those countries.
Locals will expect you to be a retiree, a tourist, slumming it and up to no good, or an entrepreneur who is going to invest and create a business. You can't just go get a normal job domestically and expect to have a better life than you would in a western country. Worst of all, you won't really be accepted as a member of the local culture unless you've married a local and speak the language perfectly. People will see you as an outsider, and they'll take your money, but you will likely never feel at home.
The expats I have met in Latin America who have made a good life for themselves are either:
A. Working for large multinationals and live in a cloistered expat bubble.
B. Working as teachers in elite schools or as missionaries connected with some sort of religion or charity.
C. Digital Nomads who are basically permanent tourists and not really ex-pats.
D. People who were formally middle class in western countries and are now upper class having started boutique resorts, specialty farming operations, or are doing real estate development. This is the best reason to move to a developing country: You have the mindset of a wealthy person, but can't break through the middle class glass ceiling. Usually these people will leverage home equity or savings in western countries to invest in lifestyle business or those with a high rate of return in developing countries that require a lot of hands on management and political skill. Usually, the capital they invest would have been insufficient to star the same kind of business in a western country.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, my friend. I've been seriously contemplating for about a year now whether America is a sinking ship and it's time to leave and head back across the pond.
The grass is always greener in someone else's yard, and the mold is always greener on someone else's bread. We over-estimate both how good and how bad others have it.
Laughable, it's quite solidly Social Democratic. Strong unions, universal health care, full social safety net. It's way harder to fire an employee in Australia than in the United States. A rich person would move to Australia because it's safe and comfortable.
Yes, it's not ‘close’. Australia is not really close to anywhere, apart from New Zealand, PNG and Indonesia. But I do think that it helps us being in basically the same timezone as China.
A very large component of that is wealthy Chinese immigration. I have a feeling that it happens to mesh well with the definitions of "millionaire" because a very common route for Chinese immigrants to come to Australia is through property investment, which intrinsically creates a readily quantifiable asset qualifying them as a millionaire. Further, since property investment by foreigners is restricted, any chinese person who does immigrate immediately becomes a funnel for relatives and friends back home to channel investment money in. So I would suspect that a lot of these "millionaires" are paper millionaires only.
I moved to Australia around 10 years ago (originally from Poland but traveled the world extensively) and worked in tech since then wishing I did a course in welding or heavy machinery operation instead. Even mining laundry service workers here get 120,000/year salary!
The tide is turning though and world's biggest quarry is in trouble.....since China problems are looming more profoundly on Australian economy (China sneezes and Australia catches a nasty cold) more people are looking towards other industries i.e. services, tech, medical and those who used to make a tidy profit in the mines are being let go due to slumping iron ore pricing and weakened demand. In the space of last 12 months iron ore price was cut in half.
Add world's most expensive housing prices, climate issues, stalling economy, bogan attitudes (less so with the influx of educated migrants) etc. and Australia has its own share of issues to deal with. All things considered though, I would never want to go back to Europe or move to US. Why? To name a few: stable democratic government, great lifestyle, far away from some of the the loony bins e.g. Putin or not sharing borders with other countries (can get pretty lonely here at times though as to get anywhere is a minimum 10 hours flight), good pay and social support system, lots of nationalities in bigger cities so racial tensions are rare (we all just seem to get along), warm weather etc. Why would I want to live anywhere else? Yes, I could make more money in US, be more culturally aware/inspired in Europe, have cheaper lifestyle in Asia (south-east) etc. but when you look at what's really important in life and narrow it down to a dozen or so factors, especially if having a family is a prospect, nothing comes close to living Downunder. Even Kiwis want to live here. And that comes from someone who lived (at least 16 months) on every continent, except Antarctica and Africa.
Another thing I like about Australia is that it has no cultural and historical debt. Coming from Europe where some of the buildings I use to live in were older then Australia itself, there was always a great sense of pride (sometimes false) to think/say/do things the certain way just because it's what my ancestors believed in. Don't get me wrong, I think that European culture, shaped by its history is one of the best things this continent can be proud of but for some reason living Downunder feels liberating. It does not matter where you come from, what religion you profess, whether you're a gay or straight etc. the pressure of being stigmatized based on your personal values or your origin is non-existent. Aussie history is very young, some may say that excluding Aboriginal people, it's just started so in some ways it feels that migrating here you can start your life with carte blanche without having to conform to any norms or dogmas resulting from entrenched culture as it's the case in other countries. It's far from laissez faire as Australia is somewhat a nanny state (in a good sense) but open-mined and democratic enough to let one be and not interfere or make you feel bad in case you have opposing views (think governments in China, Russia, UAE or culture in Middle East, Asia etc.)
> In our view
,
a Brexit w
ill
not result in an outflow of millionaires from the UK. On the contrary, we
believe
that wealthy UK citizens are more likely to stay
in the UK if there is a Brexit.
This view is backed up by
the fact that
most of
the
wealthy
British people we
interviewed
voiced concern
over the UK’s
open border
policy
with Europe
.
I really want to see what would happen to that theory after a Brexit. Would the economical/financial benefits of a closed border policy outweighs the economical/financial benefits of being a member of the European Union ? If so then that's really bad for Europe image, if not then that's really bad for those financial super powers to realize their judgments are really biased.
The third option being: the analysts here really messed up and shouldn't make a connection between a stance on open border policy and an outflow as consequence.
Several of my smartest and most ambitious friends have emigrated from London to Aus and Japan. Destinations that have sensible immigration policies, and which have maintained their cultural integrity.
A country is not a country without borders. When I emigrate I will choose a country based on its singular culture, and crucially, how well it maintains that culture. Why would I choose a country that's right for me now but risks changing in the future when I have kids there?
Multi-ethnicity in London is great. Multiculturalism in London is a sickness. No one chooses to move here for "London's culture," because it doesn't have an identifiable culture. So people come here expecting to maintain their own culture in a bubble instead, resulting in ghettos, self-segregation and rising tension.
Is "sensible" a euphemism for "don't allow brown people in"? I've never heard Japan's immigration policies described as sensible before. Japan as a country is dying because of their low birthrate and overly restrictive immigration policies. What's sensible about that?
"Sensible" is a euphemism for "don't allow religious fundamentalists with a deep-seated hatred of the West in"
Additionally, this demographic (I won't name the religion - I'm sure you know the one I'm describing) has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female unemployment rate of 75% in the UK.
You don't die as a country through low birthrates - this could only happen in a bygone era that required massive labourforce, agriculture, factory work etc. No - the modern economy does not require "throwing bodies at the problem." We are entering the age of automation, a having more humans in a country is not as important as having the smartest humans to build the automation.
In fact having more humans in the country just creates an aging population timebomb. This problem is confounded by immigration. Not resolved by immigration. Immigrants age just like the rest of us.
Yes but that includes none of the the statements you made. You said unemployment rate of Muslim women is 75%. According to this 29% of Muslim women are in full time employment compared to 50% of general population. Yet, unemployment rate of general population is not 50%. There is a huge different between lack of full time employment and unemployment.
Every other statement after that is also utter nonsense pseudo opinion.
You're just pointing to the statistical bias in British media. There is a huge different between not being in FULL time employment and being unemployed.
"The recent national Labour Force survey showed the unemployment rate among Muslim women was 18 per cent, compared with 9 per cent for Hindu women and 4 per cent for white Christian women."
No doubt unemployment rate is higher for Muslim women, and it is a problem. But citing figures that out of your pocket isn't gonna help.
Your article is showing a different type of measure, but it's showing the same glaring problem - Muslim women are not working in this country - not nearly as many of them as other demographics. I don't care whether a Muslim commentator thinks the cause for this is anti-Muslim "bias." There isn't an institutionalised anti-Muslim bias in our workplaces, and if there was you'd have to ask "why?" - is it the five-times-a-day prayer breaks? The 30 days of fasting leaving workers unable to properly function? The subjugation of women in Muslim society? All of these factors could explain the figures we see, and they're all the fault of Islam. Not of Western employers.
Your sources are second hand, and old. The article you picked was from The Telegraph and was published in 2010, about the government report "Is Britain Fairer?", which was also published in 2010.
The latest report, from 2015, makes for interesting reading. It shows that:
a. White people have a higher rate of employment than for ethnic minorities generally (74.7% vs. 59.3%)
b. Men have a higher rate of employment than women, and women are more likely to be in part-time work and less likely to be in senior management positions.
c. Religious minorities are more likely to be unemployed, and in particular Muslim men experience the highest levels of unemployment.
There's no analysis though of why any of this is the case though. All the things you highlight aren't necessarily issues that can't be overcome. But you have selectively cherry-picked what you want to see, and I can't see that you can provide any sources that back up your assertions about why Muslims face high unemployment.
As a brown person, I'd really like to see people distinguish between race and culture. Culture is a much stronger predictor of behaviour and compatibility than race / skin colour.
So what if they have low birthrate? I love visiting Japan and quite enjoy their culture. I don't want them to change and become "multicultural" and lose their cultural identity. And as a brown person, I actually agree with him and the comment below. There is one particular religion and a majority of its followers that are fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.
If you are pointing to Australia as an argument against multiculturalism, then you're pointing to the wrong country. Our society is one of the most multicultural in the world.
And I have news for you - I have a number of friends who have moved to London for "London's culture".
Millionaires are fleeing their country to avoid penal liability.
I am french, I have read Clinton's email, and I think they try to avoid investigations. And some have a lot on their plate.
On one hand I think the country will be better without them, on the other one I still hope justice will be made. And I would like the welcoming countries to be aware some millionaires are rich by bending rules.
Parts of this study seem dubious. Neither 'city' nor 'millionaire' is defined. The authors allege that rising religious tensions and a lack of opportunities are to blame for the French millionaire outflow. Is that the whole story? Could the aggressive tax rates and hurdles posed by regulation have more to do with it?
Here's a fun fact: when Hollande's 75% tax rate was announced, waiting lists at some of the more expensive francophone Swiss boarding schools ballooned overnight. Make of that what you will. (NB this tax rate was introduced in 2013 and dropped in 2014.)
Millionaire is defined at the bottom under "Notes and Definitions"
Here's the relevant text:
“Millionaires” otherwise
known as “high net worth individuals” or “HNWIs” refer to individuals with
net assets of US$1 million or more excluding their primary residences
Millionaire means little, if you have 1.0 million @ 4% your below the median US income. In large part this is tracking the migration of retired people.
57 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadIt's a similar scenario to what happened with the old Dutch and English people in 1860 Manhattan. The new masses of Irish and Jews drove many to leave.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the future will be very different.
In the US, you're more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist in Europe.
Japan is peaceful for now, but has its own problems - rising tensions with China, proximity of North Korea, low economic opportunity. Same goes for most other developed Asian countries.
Africa, Middle East, Russia, most of Asia and South America are less developed (AFAIK), in terms of social cohesion, healthcare, economic opportunity.
The best options seem to be Australia and New Zealand, they are English-speaking, highly developed, peaceful, lawful and, most importantly, far away - a problem for some (e.g. if you have family members in other countries), but in case of major conflict, it will probably be a good idea.
All in all, some perspective is in order. Europe is probably the strongest it's been in the past 100 years. There are 300 million inhabitants, so even 1M migrants is a drop in the bucket. There are no immediate threats from other nation-states, except possibly for a few countries bordering Russia - although even they seem focused more on the Middle East recently. Most European countries still have the strongest social security.
On the other hand, the unexpected is just that, by definition. Chances are low, but it's possible that some crazy person does something crazy (Putin? Erdogan? A right-wing EU leader?). But that's true pretty much anywhere in the world.
The tide is turning though and world's biggest quarry is in trouble.....since China problems are looming more profoundly on Australian economy (China sneezes and Australia catches a nasty cold) more people are looking towards other industries i.e. services, tech, medical and those who used to make a tidy profit in the mines are being let go due to slumping iron ore pricing and weakened demand. In the space of last 12 months iron ore price was cut in half.
Add world's most expensive housing prices, climate issues, stalling economy, bogan attitudes (less so with the influx of educated migrants) etc. and Australia has its own share of issues to deal with. All things considered though, I would never want to go back to Europe or move to US. Why? To name a few: stable democratic government, great lifestyle, far away from some of the the loony bins e.g. Putin or not sharing borders with other countries (can get pretty lonely here at times though as to get anywhere is a minimum 10 hours flight), good pay and social support system, lots of nationalities in bigger cities so racial tensions are rare (we all just seem to get along), warm weather etc. Why would I want to live anywhere else? Yes, I could make more money in US, be more culturally aware/inspired in Europe, have cheaper lifestyle in Asia (south-east) etc. but when you look at what's really important in life and narrow it down to a dozen or so factors, especially if having a family is a prospect, nothing comes close to living Downunder. Even Kiwis want to live here! And that comes from someone who lived (at least 16 months) on every continent, except Antarctica and Africa.
Except the massive problem of growing inequality, low wages, and a public service that has been shredded. New Zealand has a scary future if it can't start to face these problems.
Most of North and Central Europe is less likely to suffer from such drastic effects.
Locals will expect you to be a retiree, a tourist, slumming it and up to no good, or an entrepreneur who is going to invest and create a business. You can't just go get a normal job domestically and expect to have a better life than you would in a western country. Worst of all, you won't really be accepted as a member of the local culture unless you've married a local and speak the language perfectly. People will see you as an outsider, and they'll take your money, but you will likely never feel at home.
The expats I have met in Latin America who have made a good life for themselves are either:
A. Working for large multinationals and live in a cloistered expat bubble.
B. Working as teachers in elite schools or as missionaries connected with some sort of religion or charity.
C. Digital Nomads who are basically permanent tourists and not really ex-pats.
D. People who were formally middle class in western countries and are now upper class having started boutique resorts, specialty farming operations, or are doing real estate development. This is the best reason to move to a developing country: You have the mindset of a wealthy person, but can't break through the middle class glass ceiling. Usually these people will leverage home equity or savings in western countries to invest in lifestyle business or those with a high rate of return in developing countries that require a lot of hands on management and political skill. Usually, the capital they invest would have been insufficient to star the same kind of business in a western country.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm...
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Beijing to Sydney - 12h 0m flight time
Beijing to LAX - 12h 0m
Beijing to London - 11h 0m
The tide is turning though and world's biggest quarry is in trouble.....since China problems are looming more profoundly on Australian economy (China sneezes and Australia catches a nasty cold) more people are looking towards other industries i.e. services, tech, medical and those who used to make a tidy profit in the mines are being let go due to slumping iron ore pricing and weakened demand. In the space of last 12 months iron ore price was cut in half.
Add world's most expensive housing prices, climate issues, stalling economy, bogan attitudes (less so with the influx of educated migrants) etc. and Australia has its own share of issues to deal with. All things considered though, I would never want to go back to Europe or move to US. Why? To name a few: stable democratic government, great lifestyle, far away from some of the the loony bins e.g. Putin or not sharing borders with other countries (can get pretty lonely here at times though as to get anywhere is a minimum 10 hours flight), good pay and social support system, lots of nationalities in bigger cities so racial tensions are rare (we all just seem to get along), warm weather etc. Why would I want to live anywhere else? Yes, I could make more money in US, be more culturally aware/inspired in Europe, have cheaper lifestyle in Asia (south-east) etc. but when you look at what's really important in life and narrow it down to a dozen or so factors, especially if having a family is a prospect, nothing comes close to living Downunder. Even Kiwis want to live here. And that comes from someone who lived (at least 16 months) on every continent, except Antarctica and Africa.
> In our view , a Brexit w ill not result in an outflow of millionaires from the UK. On the contrary, we believe that wealthy UK citizens are more likely to stay in the UK if there is a Brexit. This view is backed up by the fact that most of the wealthy British people we interviewed voiced concern over the UK’s open border policy with Europe .
The third option being: the analysts here really messed up and shouldn't make a connection between a stance on open border policy and an outflow as consequence.
A country is not a country without borders. When I emigrate I will choose a country based on its singular culture, and crucially, how well it maintains that culture. Why would I choose a country that's right for me now but risks changing in the future when I have kids there?
Multi-ethnicity in London is great. Multiculturalism in London is a sickness. No one chooses to move here for "London's culture," because it doesn't have an identifiable culture. So people come here expecting to maintain their own culture in a bubble instead, resulting in ghettos, self-segregation and rising tension.
Additionally, this demographic (I won't name the religion - I'm sure you know the one I'm describing) has a male unemployment rate of 50% and female unemployment rate of 75% in the UK.
You don't die as a country through low birthrates - this could only happen in a bygone era that required massive labourforce, agriculture, factory work etc. No - the modern economy does not require "throwing bodies at the problem." We are entering the age of automation, a having more humans in a country is not as important as having the smartest humans to build the automation.
In fact having more humans in the country just creates an aging population timebomb. This problem is confounded by immigration. Not resolved by immigration. Immigrants age just like the rest of us.
http://examine-islam.org/islam-and-the-uk-some-facts/
Every other statement after that is also utter nonsense pseudo opinion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054436/Indians-and-C...
Since we're pointing at random articles: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-musli...
"The recent national Labour Force survey showed the unemployment rate among Muslim women was 18 per cent, compared with 9 per cent for Hindu women and 4 per cent for white Christian women."
No doubt unemployment rate is higher for Muslim women, and it is a problem. But citing figures that out of your pocket isn't gonna help.
The latest report, from 2015, makes for interesting reading. It shows that:
a. White people have a higher rate of employment than for ethnic minorities generally (74.7% vs. 59.3%)
b. Men have a higher rate of employment than women, and women are more likely to be in part-time work and less likely to be in senior management positions.
c. Religious minorities are more likely to be unemployed, and in particular Muslim men experience the highest levels of unemployment.
There's no analysis though of why any of this is the case though. All the things you highlight aren't necessarily issues that can't be overcome. But you have selectively cherry-picked what you want to see, and I can't see that you can provide any sources that back up your assertions about why Muslims face high unemployment.
And I have news for you - I have a number of friends who have moved to London for "London's culture".
I am french, I have read Clinton's email, and I think they try to avoid investigations. And some have a lot on their plate.
On one hand I think the country will be better without them, on the other one I still hope justice will be made. And I would like the welcoming countries to be aware some millionaires are rich by bending rules.
Here's a fun fact: when Hollande's 75% tax rate was announced, waiting lists at some of the more expensive francophone Swiss boarding schools ballooned overnight. Make of that what you will. (NB this tax rate was introduced in 2013 and dropped in 2014.)
Here's the relevant text: “Millionaires” otherwise known as “high net worth individuals” or “HNWIs” refer to individuals with net assets of US$1 million or more excluding their primary residences
San Francisco millionaires: 129,000. Population: 837,442 (2013)